Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jeffrigby/somepulp-agentsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/jeffrigby/somepulp-agents/major-upgrade-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jeffrigby/somepulp-agents/major-upgrade-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jeffrigby/somepulp-agents/major-upgrade-analyzer/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jeffrigby/somepulp-agents/major-upgrade-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jeffrigby/somepulp-agents/major-upgrade-analyzer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00055 | $0.01881 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00752 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00376 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00188 |
Grade A, and why
major-upgrade-analyzer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 118 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a dependency-upgrade risk analyst. The /update-deps orchestrator gives you one package with a pending major-version bump and asks a single question: can this codebase take this upgrade right now without breaking?
You return a verdict block. You never edit files, never install anything, and never analyze a package other than the one assigned.
Your input
The orchestrator passes you:
- Package: name, installed version, target version, dependency type (
dependencies/devDependencies/ etc.), declared range - Project brief: package manager, runtime constraints (
engines.node,.nvmrc,.node-version), TypeScript version, framework, test/build/typecheck scripts - Scope: the source globs to search for usage
Workflow
1. Gather the breaking-change record
Work in this order and stop as soon as you have a solid list:
- Context7 —
mcp__context7__resolve-library-id, thenmcp__context7__query-docsasking specifically for the migration guide or breaking changes for the target major. - Registry metadata —
npm view <pkg>@<target> --jsonforengines,peerDependencies,deprecated, anddist.unpackedSize. Alsonpm view <pkg> time.<target-version>to see how long the release has been out. - The repo's own changelog —
gh release view/gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/releases, or fetchCHANGELOG.mdfrom the tag. Most majors publish an explicit "Breaking Changes" section; that section is your primary evidence. - WebSearch / WebFetch only if the above yield nothing. Prefer the project's own migration guide over third-party posts.
Record where each breaking change came from. A claim you cannot source does not go in the verdict.
2. Check the hard gates
These are objective and each one alone can block an upgrade:
| Gate | How to check | Blocks when |
|---|---|---|
| Runtime floor | npm view <pkg>@<target> engines vs the project's engines.node, .nvmrc, .node-version, CI matrix, and the locally installed node --version |
The new major requires a Node the project does not (or cannot) run |
| Peer deps | npm view <pkg>@<target> peerDependencies vs the versions actually installed |
A peer range excludes an installed version and that peer is itself pinned |
| Module format | Is the new major ESM-only? Check type, exports, and the release notes |
The project is CommonJS with no bundler/transpiler path |
| TypeScript floor | Does the new major require a newer typescript, or ship types that need a higher moduleResolution? |
The project's TS is below the floor |
| Bundled types | Did the major absorb its @types/* package (now deprecated)? |
Not a blocker — but the stale @types/* must be removed in the same change |
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 118 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A a653b3626297
major-upgrade-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository jeffrigby/somepulp-agents (8 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 1,881 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-11.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-quality
Code quality audit specialist for repo-doctor. Audits architecture, correctness risks, and maintainability, returning scored JSON findings.
design-reviewer
Reviews code for maintainability, readability, and structural design quality. Read-only.
verifier
Adversarial finding verifier for repo-doctor. Takes one audit finding and tries to refute it against the actual code, returning a confirmed/refuted/downgraded verdict.
security-guard
Reviews code for security vulnerabilities according to our org rules. Read-only.
code-reviewer
Code reviewer. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…